"Its stock of savings is diminishing" - Oh really? What do you mean by "stock of savings"? If measured in claims on assets of foreign countries less claims that foreign countries hold on Japanese assets then the opposite has been true for the past few decades.

If measured by the increase in public debt, then this has been entirely matched by an increase in private savings.

I conclude this is a nonsensical statement.

"With the largest amount of debt relative to the size of its economy among the rich countries, and a stubborn deflation problem to boot, Japan has an economic time-bomb ticking beneath it. It may be able to service its debt comfortably for the time being, but the euro zone serves as a reminder that Japan needs strong leadership to stop the bomb from exploding."

The difference between all the Eurozone countries and Japan is that Japan is the issuer of the currency it uses and has obligations in, whereas the Eurozone countries are not. This is a fundamental difference making comparisons of monetary obligations meaningless. Japan can never be involuntarily insolvent because of Yen denominated obligations it may have, Germany and Greece can be involuntarily insolvent because of euro denominated obligations that they may have.

I would suggest the economist take a trip to Japan and enjoy less crime, less unemployment, less inflation, much deeper culture, cleaner streets and a politer people than are present in the USA which it so idolises.

I find it difficult to know why The Economist refers to Ichiro Oazwa only in terms of his being "Shadow Shogun" representing the "worst side of the old politics". Is he an Al Capone of the 21st century? Is he not a democratically elected politician? Why do you never discuss his policy?

What was the people's enthusiasm about DPJ's land slide victory last year about? People felt a sense of hope that they at the long last had their leaders standing up against the control of their fate by bureaucrats. Who cared whether Ozawa was Shadow Shogun or not?

Ozawa's campaign-funding scandals? Is my memory wrong to understand that the Tokyo Procecuter Office quizzed Ozawa but failed to prove his being guilty? If he was not proved to be guilty why should he be expelled from politics? Who are you to say Ozawa's continuing his political activities would be "inexcusable"? It is Japanese people, not the Japanese media or The Economist (whose views seem to be nothing but repetition of what Japanese main stream newspapers say), who would vote Ozawa out if and when necessary!!

I am a Japanese and do not even mind Ozawa's being our prime minister as long as he pushes Koizumi's reforms, an idea of Japan's not being "slavish" in her relations with the United States and an idea of the whole nation's sharing burden that has been imposed on the people of Okinawa. If he did all these who cares whether he is a Shadow Shogun!?

"Ironically, China has always been conquered rather than engaged in conquering others, throughout its 5000 years history. Even the last dynasty was a Manchu dynasty, originating from Manchuria, and not a Han one (the Hans constituting 80 per cent or more of Chinese)"

The chinese territory after the unification by Qin Shi Huang was centered on the Yellow river bassin, an area about 15% of the PRC's territory today. How do you explain this huge expansion? Do you think that it happened only by peaceful means? The first emperor himself conducted military operations as far as Vietnam. The subsequent Han dynasty extended it's control to the southwest by military campaigns against the numerous kingdoms existing there. That's just a typical example of imperialism. It's true that the mandchus also conquered a lot of territory. However, after their downfall, the han rulers didn't relinquish the territory and give it back to the indigenous population living there. Instead, they claimed it as their own.

"How has China been a threat to its neighbours?" I would say the real threat from China is that I don't believe China to be a country that is completely stable. Meaning I could easily see either internal infighting or possible something to occur like Argentina did in the Falkland Islands War. meaning they started a war for domestic political reasons. There has been different factions and grabs of power in the past, I would not assume transfer of power will always go smoothly in an opaque system. This maybe the real threat, that may end up drawing in neighbors.

""It's clear that all this talk of China being a threat is simply a piece of Western propaganda based on envy, fear and remnants of past colonial arrogance. ""

I would say it has more to do with how fast things are changing and people wanting to maintain the status quo. back in what 94? (last taiwan straight crisis) China backed down because everyone knew the US would wipe the floor with them. Today you are looking at serious damage to both sides. As I said in an earlier post, currently the US is building up China as a paper tiger. US domestic politics and logrolling is a factor you must also consider in relations. Coalition logrolling is what led to Japanese and German over expansion and aggression. Politicians and people in those two respective countries realized their actions made it likely that people would resist them, but due to the politics they could not stop it, because they were out of their own self-interest. Being put into a situation sortof like, we are enemies, so we build weapons, we eventually build more and more. unsustanable. If i quit building trying to defuse the situation, what is to say you wont take advantage and build more then be able to take me out? uncertanties exist everywhere. Assuming even the USA will be around in 50 years is something that is not set in stone...

"Ironically, China has always been conquered rather than engaged in conquering others, throughout its 5000 years history."

Just because the Chinese reached a point of diminishing returns due to geography does not mean they would not have expanded further out if they truly had the ability. The open Steppe and jungles are sinkholes of men and money to maintain armed forces against determined foes (as exist there throughout history) Also keep in mind China generally focused on infantry and not the large qauntities of light horse formations that is needed to maintain control over central Asia...

Keep in mind the oldest Chinese countries and dynasties do not occupy the current territory that China occupies today, obviously they expanded. I would also keep in mind China is a huge country by itself. England and France would be the size of a province or two...

China was conquered completely once and it took the Mongols over 50 years to do so... and partially thinking there was an early Turk empire in central asia for a while, but didn't conquer all of china and later by Europeans and Japanese, but in the end she expelled the Japanese and thus also the European influence. It depends on how much history and resistence you want to classify.

China is more likely to fall into civil war than be conquered.

What you are also unfairly comparing is Europeans who suddenly got a huge technology advantage so they could conquer most of the world, and only expanded due to centuries of internal fighting they expanded out because they could no longer expand in Europe. China still has vast areas of territory open to expansion...

China conquered all areas that posed a threat to it (who would have thought two million mongols would conquer 100 million chinese?). Europe was generally unable to conquer itself entirely. If China had some powerful neighbors things would have been very different.

""The Japanese have always been envious of this and when they allied themselves with armed Western conquerors they adopted a displaced sense of superiority like the Westerners.""

Japanese expansion and modernization was due to the fact they didn't want to become a colony of Europe. Sick man China at the time was a wonderful example of what happens if you don't keep up. Japan has always had a unique sense of superiority, even before the West came to them. Afterall Japan is the land of the gods.

"the Chinese believes in peace as its own long history has taught it the futility and wastefulness of war.""

meh, this sounds like some propaganda. If they were really so peaceloving why so many civil wars? why expand out so much from the coast and river valleys? just because they had no neighbors to fight with. geography plays a huge role. Now in present day, geography no longer hinders armies, navies, and peoples as it once did. So assume China today is to act like China 3000 years ago...

I don't have much against China personally, I expect them to do things out of self-interest.

Many of sour statements can only be described as shallow and sweeping and not worthy of rebuttal.

Talking of killing its own, the US has been sending thousands of its young to die needlessly in useless (or Obama described it as 'dumb') wars including what's taking place in Iraq and Afghanistans. Do it however you like it's still killing your own by ineptness.

As to Tibet and Taiwan, there's no need to debate with you when you are simply parroting the more bigoted Western viewpoints and that of the ignorant.

If you want a serious debate raise your standard.

I do not approve of violations of human dignities and rights whoever does it whether be it a Chinese or Western politician. Politicians are the same all over and in China I may agree that openly shouting opposition to the government is more dangerous than in a democracy. But you are not blind to the damage that Nixon, Bush and other presidents have done to its citizen enemies.

And stopping being plebian by referring to alternative opinion makers as being paid mouth pieces. We do have to have to resort to low brow debates here.

I suspect that 'coalitions with ... ideological peers' are still some way up the road in Japan. In the meantime, fixers like Ozawa are essential if the anti-LDP front is to hold together.

I for one don't share your optimism that the 'mould of Japanese politics' is yet broken and that 'it is almost inconceivable that (the Japanese) will vote the old lot back into office'. After fifteen years of arguing, mocking, even pleading, I still couldn't persuade my mother-in-law to vote against her five-times re-elected LDP representative in that mould-breaking election last year, and I'm sure there are lots more like her.

What's needed are at least five years of non-LDP government (a) to reassure nervous voters that the rice will not shrivel in the fields, and (b) to give time for the LDP folks to discover an ideological identity or identities. Only when the old amorphous ideology-less LDP really disappears will it be safe to let the new amorphous ideology-less DPJ folks start looking for their ideological identities (for they are many).

In the meantime, it would be nice if Japan was able to emulate the Philippines and simply tell the US to set up camp somewhere else. The Okinawan economy would not collapse and China would not invade. The biggest protection against international conflict is international trade, and it's difficult to fault China on that front. It's not going to happen, of course ...

In my opinion the current situation Japan is in is mainly due to its incompetent politicians, who are unable to do anything for the country but filling their own pockets with tax payers money. It is impressive that in a country with one of the most honest societies in the world has such a corrupt and unable herd of politicians. Seems like everybody dishonest and incapable becomes politician where he is most welcome and voted for.

Furthermore, where is the problem of an American base? Their are in many countries and considering the local economy in Okinawa, I am pretty sure that it would be a string hit against its regional economy if the 20000 soldiers were to disappear from there.

The Japanese situation is not due to US hegemony but more to its own politicians, which are incapable of ruling and flee their office as soon as things dont turn out the way they wanted!

I see. China promotes peace huh? By invading Tibet, laying claim to Taiwan, stealing endless copywrighted materials, killing its own citizens because their opinions differ from the propaganda they are fed, selling tainted milk to not only other nations but their own people, banning endless material from their people, etc, etc.

"How has China been a threat to its neighbours?"

After Tibet and Taiwan let's talk to Nepal. Just why are the Nepalese so afraid of China? And the Uygur people, how do they see the Benevolent Chinese? Not to mention that Chinese forces 'liberated' Pyongyang during the Korean War. They were simply looking out for the Korean's best interest, right? No, they weren't.

So now China is looking to expand in the Middle East and Africa.

I beleive what you posted concerning the Middle East and Africa is referred to in China as an 'Angular Approach'.

Tell me something; are you on the same payroll as Chinaeagle, Houshu and Houston Cowboy Capitalist? Please, CRP, hire smarter guys.

I agree with the points.The article does not mention the name, but in essense, I would interprete that DPJ should shake hands with Minnna no To Party led by Yoshimi Watanabe, rather than to stick a coalition with Kokumin Shinto of Shizuka Kamei-who wants Japan Post to be nationalized-. Yoshimi Watanabe left LDP when Taro Aso was reluctant to initiate the streamlining of bureaucrats. This photo of red dot dropping from Japan's flag is shocking, and I urge all of Japanese members of parliament read it.

"Without the US military China arming herself is a very real (if only psychological) threat to her neighbors."

How has China been a threat to its neighbours? The fact is every nation, China's neighbours in particular, wants to have a piece of the Chinese economic pie. Even the EU nations quietly fight each other for Chinese trade. Australia would be much impoverished over the last fifteen year or so without Chinese business. The African nations, whom the West claimed are being 'colonised and exploited' by China welcomes Chinese money for infrastructural development and economic expansion without 'strings'. The Middle-Eastern nations are friendly with China and wants to sell it oil. It's clear that all this talk of China being a threat is simply a piece of Western propaganda based on envy, fear and remnants of past colonial arrogance. Remember the remarks of Prince Philip of UK about 'slitted Chinese eyes'.

"China is, and has been, an expansionist nation. But she's learned to expand and 'invade' by economic and seemingly legal means."

If Chinese efforts at elevating the standard of living of its people, many of whom are still needing help to get out of poverty, by working hard to improve its economy, is described as 'expansionist', no one should see anything wrong with that. When we speak of expansionism we are often reminded of Britain and other Western nations bearing arms to take territories, land and possessions which did not belong to them. Nations like Australia, Hawaii, NZ and ex-British India comes to mind. Chinese territories were literally divided by the Europeans by military force and made their own for almost a hundred years. After WW2, the US 'took' Japan; how else how do you describe the US writing the constitution for it, put a permanent US military base on it to be paid by Japan and direct its foreign policy till today and so on.

Ironically, China has always been conquered rather than engaged in conquering others, throughout its 5000 years history. Even the last dynasty was a Manchu dynasty, originating from Manchuria, and not a Han one (the Hans constituting 80 per cent or more of Chinese) The difference with other similar type conquest is that the invaders turned out to be more Chinese than the Chinese themselves, adopting their language, absorbing their culture and applying the Chinese governing system. The Japanese have always been envious of this and when they allied themselves with armed Western conquerors they adopted a displaced sense of superiority like the Westerners. This is their downfall. The Chinese nation has been a superior economic and force for all of known history but like Athens and Rome being too civilised has led to its neglect of armed defense, exposing itself to belligerent invaders. Not this time though; not with the US going about shooting their guns whereever they can get away with it. Thus the Chinese need to be sufficiently armed and protected.

As a nation, the Chinese believes in peace as its own long history has taught it the futility and wastefulness of war. By contrast the US is like a new Rome, a new power unsure of its status, which it can only bolster and recognised by military might. Its intention as a force for good is well meant but its inept executions has caused endless miseries to its own citizens and many, many others; throughout the world and never-ending since WW2. The Japanese are caught in this 'US net' and have yet to learn how to retrieve themselves from it! Pity the Japanese!

As Lafiel rightly pointed out: "not actual facts but sometimes feelings and fears play a bigger role in international relations".

While the actual size and effectiveness of any military Japan might have might be an unknown, one thing is for sure. Japan having any military not under US control will stir anxiety in a lot of Pacific Rim nations.

All the talks of Japanese rearmanament and expansionism is overblown. Even if Japan expands her military to the best of her ability, she would be no stronger than countries like France and Great Britain militarily, owing to her anaemic population and weak economy. And frankly, it would be impossible for even a militarily strong Japan to establish military ascendancy in her neighborhood over countries like China. In any case, even though the Uyoku, the only group of Japan that advocates militarism, likes to be loud and bombastic, their influence in the Japanese public is severely limited.

The impression I got from your politics blog was that Japan and Germany are flexing their nationalist muscles again.

The over the top scenes outside Pete Bethune's joke trial in Japan for what was actually an attack on his ship, are an obvious example of the Japanese attacking any outside person or persons that stand up to them. New Zealand is well known, except for the ridiculous stand by our current government to allow Japan to kill whales, for its advocacy of whales in our area of the world which Japan hates. The Japanese are definitely hotting up their imperialistic attitude to the rest of the world.

There are snippets of evidence from a decade ago that the National Front in Germany is starting to rise from its slumber.

The world is going conservative and making patriarchal posturings on the world stage. It can only lead to war.

"...by removing America, will Japan have to modify her constitution to allow her to be able to officially declare war?"

Yes, they would. But 'removing America' should include certain constitutional modifications. Let's don't forget that constitution was written in 1947 while Japan was under great duress, US military occupation AND McArthur's people had a substantial influence of the drafting of said constitution. When you look at it that way it brings into question whether Japan has hr constitution at all.

As I said before, I strongly support Japan having her own full military including nukes, but I still have to wonder what would happen 40 or so years down the road; Would Japan become expansionist again?

Japan can pay for her own defense. However, considering her percent of public debt versus GDP (close to 200%) she will have to be very thrifty with how she spends in order to do so, there is only so much money the population of Japan has. If she is forced to borrow from foriegn creditors then she will be unable to sustain her public debt ratio and end up the way of Greece (just over 100% of gdp). excuse the lack of proper numbers, mostly to show the difference. Currently Japan is able to sustain such a large debt, because her debt is owed to herself, her own population, as long as they have faith they are fine. foriegners are more wary of course.

Also, while the JSDF is very large for a defense force for a country that is unable to declar war by her own constitution, it is not in my humble opinion truly able to match say the US's presence and ability to project force and as a deterrant.

So the question is not actual facts but sometimes feelings and fears play a bigger role in international relations (see how the US likes to make China a paper tiger) how does Chinese public sentiment (which the CCP likes to stir up every now and then and sometimes gets a little out of hand) react to the fact that Japan may build up little more military muscle to provide adequate protection? while the threat is North Korea, keep in mind China and Japan are in dispute of some islands.

The questions truly to be asked (and there might be some more, but these are the ones that come to mind), how much American support would be removed? and by removing America, will Japan have to modify her constitution to allow her to be able to officially declare war?

I am sure this spokes some paranoia, considering most Japanese relations with her neighbors was when she occupied them by force...